These writ petitions are by different organizations of operators of public carriages. They challenge the enhancement of the premium payable for third party insurance.

2. The short issue arising for decision is as to whether the Tariff Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as the “TAC”, for short, was justified in issuing the decision contained in TAC/7/06 dated 4-12-2006 whereby it decided to withdraw the tariff rates, terms, conditions and regulations for Fire, engineering, Motor, Workmen’s Compensation and other classes of business fixed by it. As a consequence of the said decision of the TAC, the rates, terms, conditions and regulations applicable to the said classes of business were to be regulated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, hereinafter, the “IRDA” for short, with effect from 1-1-2007. Petitioners also challenge the decision of the IRDA by which the tariff was fixed by them. I may at once notice that during the pendency of these writ petitions, counter-affidavit has been placed on record producing, among other things, the decision of IRDA revising the impugned rates by slashing them.

3. The prime question arising for decision is as to whether the TAC is obliged to formulate the tariff rates to govern the aforesaid insurance policies and as to whether the IRDA has the power to fix the rates.

4. The TAC is constituted under Section 64(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Part IIB of the Insurance Act, consisting of sections 64U to 64UM relates to Tariff Advisory Committee and Control of Tariff Rates. Section 64UC provides the power of the Advisory Committee to regulate rate, advantage etc. It provides, among other things that the TAC may, from time to time and to the extent it deems expedient, control and regulate the rates that may be offered by insurers in respect of any risk or of any class or category of risks, the rates etc. of which, in its opinion, it is proper to control and regulate. Such rates etc. shall be binding on the insurers. Sub-section (3) of Section 64UC provides that every decision of the TAC shall be valid only after and to the extent it is ratified by the Authority, thereby meaning the IRDA, and every such decision shall take effect from the date on which it is so ratified by the IRDA and if the IRDA so orders in any case, from such earlier date as may be so ordered. In the instant case, as already noticed, the TAC has decided to withdraw the tariff rates fixed by it. So much so, on and after the issuance of the decision dated 4-12-2006, there is no TAC decision fixing the tariff in terms of Section 64UC of the Insurance Act.

5. Coming to the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, it can be seen that Section 14(2)(i) of that Act provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 14, the powers and functions of the IRDA shall include control and regulation of the rates that may be offered by insurers in respect of general insurance business not so controlled and regulated by the TAC under Section 64U of the Insurance Act. So much so, the TAC having withdrawn the rates fixed by it, it was well within the competence of the IRDA to control and regulate the rates that may be offered by insurers in respect of general insurance business regarding the fields of insurance in question. Both the enactments under consideration are Central legislations, for the purpose of regulating and controlling the field of insurance and make reference to each other. So much so, the TAC was well within its authority to take its decision that it was not expedient to continue to have the tariff rates fixed by it and therefore, to withdraw the same. Once that was done, the field occupied by the rates fixed by the TAC under Section 64UC of the Insurance Act fell vacant and therefore, the IRDA was well within authority referable to Section 14(2)(i) to control and regulate the rates of those fields of insur